Help on Choosing Emerald Cut!

[diur88]

Hi everyone, been reading a bunch of posts on this forum, which have been extremely helpful in the search for a perfect Emerald Cut engagement ring. I was hoping to get some feedback on my current search!

Right now, the current criteria is:
-Budget: 15-20k
-Carat: 1.75+
-L/W Ratio: 1.3-1.45
-Color: H/G/F
-Clarity: VS2, VS1, VVS2
-Depth %: 60.0-68.0%
-Table %: 61.0-69.0%

I've been looking at James Allen primarily. Hoping to request some ASETs from James Allen soon. Going through their current selection, these caught my eye, but I'm very inexperienced and don't really know how to do a thorough visual analysis from the rotating video provided:

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.07-carat-g-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-1133954

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.80-carat-g-color-vs1-clarity-sku-2286930

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.92-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-1001338

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.81-carat-f-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-2315560

Is there anything in particular that I should be looking for in these rotating videos? I've also been looking at the "Signature Ideal" Emerald Cuts at Blue Nile; is there a consensus on the quality of those?

Thanks for all your help!

 

[tyty333]

I've been looking at James Allen primarily. Hoping to request some ASETs from James Allen soon. Going through their current selection, these caught my eye, but I'm very inexperienced and don't really know how to do a thorough visual analysis from the rotating video provided:

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.07-carat-g-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-1133954
requst aset...could be promising

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.80-carat-g-color-vs1-clarity-sku-2286930
no, too wide of step

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.92-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-1001338
no, too wide of step

https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.81-carat-f-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-2315560
looks promising...get aset

Is there anything in particular that I should be looking for in these rotating videos? I've also been looking at the "Signature Ideal" Emerald Cuts at Blue Nile; is there a consensus on the quality of those?

I'm not an emerald expert but the two in the middle are show wide dark steps which is not desirable.

Edit...wait for more input to get asets

 

[tyty333]

Here are some that I liked...
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.74-carat-d-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-866908
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.02-carat-f-color-vs1-clarity-sku-958713
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.03-carat-f-color-vvs1-clarity-sku-2313510
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.81-carat-f-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-2315560
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.02-carat-d-color-vs2-clarity-sku-2364300
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.77-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-2383203

 

[LawmaLlama]

Hi diur88, I'm an EC owner.
You have the basic criteria, but keep in mind you dont want the numbers to be equal or close to equal. I notice a few of your choices have equal depths and tables. In my experience, this doesn't make a pretty EC at all.

You want the table smaller than the depth, like so:
65 table, 68 depth OR 62 table, 65 depth
BUT NOT THE REVERSE,
70 table, 62 depth OR 68 table, 59 depth (both too shallow and may be glassy)
AND NOT TOO DEEP (because you lose spread, it hides your carat weight, your stone will look smaller than it is, and your stone may show alot of black flashing)
like 63 table, 72 depth OR 65 table, 70 depth

The prettiest ECs and more easy to find are 67-68 depth with smaller tables.

Personally, I like to look for the "rare birds" (they are harder to find) depth below 65, and table even smaller (eg 60-63) because you maximize spread and the chance of amazing flashes. Occasionally I do find some of these rare birds that are still pretty even with a larger table, but I think it is an exception and not a good method of hunting.

I'll take a look on JA nd see what I come up with.
Also, are you stuck on JA?
I ask because Good Old Gold is known for their assistance with ECs. I recently purchased my up upgrade with them (not an EC) but they are really great and I would trust them to find you something very nice in your generous budget.

 

[LawmaLlama]

Here are my thoughts on tyty's picks

Here are some that I liked...
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.74-carat-d-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-866908
nope
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.02-carat-f-color-vs1-clarity-sku-958713
just blah
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.03-carat-f-color-vvs1-clarity-sku-2313510
yes, yowzers!
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.81-carat-f-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-2315560
sold
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.02-carat-d-color-vs2-clarity-sku-2364300
very nice
https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.77-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-2383203
love the corners on this one but not sure about the dark flashes

 

[LawmaLlama]

I prefer excellent symmetry. Here are some more to consider. Don't be afraid of H color in this size. I am color sensitive and have a 1.52 I-color EC. I only see the color in mine in infrequent lighting situations.

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.01-carat-h-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-2362242

https://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.01-carat-h-color-vvs1-clarity-sku-2243325

In addition to the ones tyty picked that i also liked, i didnt see anything else in their inventory I would consider with your budget. Good ECs are hard to find, and you can afford to be picky.

 

[LawmaLlama]

I looked at GOGs site, but they dont have their ASETs posted for their ECs. I've seen several youtube videos on ECs on both of their channels, so I'm sure they could pull in some great stones and provide ASETs for you also.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Using table and depth numbers as a guide to buying emerald cuts will lead to many incorrect assessments.
You'll find stones that should look good but don't- and conversely, stones that should not look good based on numbers, but look great in real life.
Just as an example- having the same table and depth has ZERO significance- none. Some stones with the same table/depth will be lovely, others will be dogs.
Other aspects- such as the placement of facets on the pavilion- and even more important- corner size, will have a far greater impact on the overall look.
Neither of these aspects is included on a GIA report.

The problem is that by eliminating stones based on such a narrow range of table and depth numbers, there's a great possibility you'll eliminate the perfect stone.

 

[LawmaLlama]

Hi diur, I'm not an expert and defer to trade pros, but for me, and I think most consumers, it can be overwhelming to search the web on your own for an EC without your table and depth criteria and the suggestions I made. Fancy cuts are tough to shop for online.

Like I said, there are some exceptions to the depth/table numbers, but I think you may find (especially when looking at multiple sites), that the bulk of good looking ECs tend to fall within that criteria. Study up by exploring multiple vendor sites.

All of that said, a vendor is in a better position to vet the ECs that fall outside the table/depth criteria and my suggestions.

My suggestions are based on my personal preferences for ECs, my experiences with shopping for ECs both in person and online, as a long time owner, and having seen several ECs in person.

I hope this helps, and wish you luck!

 

[Rockdiamond]

I totally agree LawmaLlama- sorry to have felt the need to contradict you
But I get it. Most consumers are overwhelmed by the choices in fancy shaped diamonds.
They're far more difficult to buy- for consumers, and tradespeople.
That's why numbers seems like a good place to start, at least. IMO this is the wrong approach.

I think it's important, so I've spent many years discussing this subject here on PS.
An analogy- say someone went to 10 Chinese Restaurants.
Every single one (7) that had an odd numbered address were terrible.
The three that had even numbered addresses were all amazing.
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.
Of course there are general parameters on table and depth. A stone with depth in the high 70's and above will usually look small for the weight. But they may not be ugly, per se.
But depth in the low '70s can be fine- especially on rectangular diamonds.
As far as shallow stones- don't even get me started- there can be drop dead gorgeous specimens in the '50's depths.
In emerald cuts, sometimes a table in the low 70's can be very nice as well- depending on the pavilion design.
Octavia has a mid 30's table, and mid 70's depth. This proves my point that outside the box numbers can produce an amazing stone.

When assessing diamonds online, the numbers that DO matter are LxW
I frequently have to do my own searching for emerald cuts- I never eliminate based on table and depth without looking into it further.
Total surface area is a reasonably accurate method of determining how large a diamond will look.
I suggest using the LxW and photographs/ video to eliminate. You still eliminate some winners, and get false positive- but less.


Anyway, sorry for the long winded explanation.
I write this as a lifelong lover of emerald cuts. I've been the luckiest guy in the world- and have been privileged to have looked at thousand and thousands of them.
my advice- open the search parameters- use the force. ( I've seen Rogue One twice in the past week)

 

[LawmaLlama]

"Spot on, rockdiamond is." (channeling Yoda here).

Rockdiamond's suggestion to look at LxW is excellent. I have been known to nerd-out by inputting LxW in a spreadsheet, and have a separate column for surface area calculations. It is super helpful to use as a comparison of spread.

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

Hi Duir88,

I'm in the trade so I cannot comment on specific diamonds or vendors.

Let me see if I can offer some advice outside the measurements openly cussed and discussed above (and there are valid opinions on the measurements!)

When I talk to people about how to evaluate fancy cuts I reference these two steps during the visual inspection - whether it's a video, magnified image or seeing the diamond in person.

1. Look for (ask about) visible inclusions that may affect the appeal of the diamond (especially under the large table facet of an emerald)

2. Get an sense of overall light performance through visual inspection and an ASET image - ASET images are not available for all diamonds (you need to ask for them and there is still no guarantee).

Once you are confident about what has the best chance of looking incredible in person (if you have not seen the diamond in person), ask an expert to inspect it (many vendors have these in house), get an ASET and post it here for evaluation by the members, and if all is in order - take the plunge! (But... juuuust in case....make sure the vendor has a great return policy ).

No method is fool-proof, but this is a pretty simple place to start.

 

[Rockdiamond]

ASET:
Here's a true story from last week.
A lady was looking at a diamond in our office- she loved the stone.
She had an ASET in her pocket. She could not figure out why the stone had a "bad" ASET, yet looked amazing to her in real life.

Skip the ASET for EC's unless you're your own ASET expert. Asking other people to judge the ASET of a stone you're considering for yourself is a worse than useless exercise.

 

[Danius]

ASET:
Here's a true story from last week.
A lady was looking at a diamond in our office- she loved the stone.
She had an ASET in her pocket. She could not figure out why the stone had a "bad" ASET, yet looked amazing to her in real life.

Skip the ASET for EC's unless you're your own ASET expert. Asking other people to judge the ASET of a stone you're considering for yourself is a worse than useless exercise.

That story you just mentioned reflects somewhat poorly on you. You had an opportunity to educate, but I think you chose just to disparage the tool and just focus on selling her the diamond she loved.

I wonder what kind of lighting they looked at diamonds under in your office? and what a "bad" ASET is in an emerald cut?
I wonder if you even considered explaining to the customer what the ASET is and isn't telling them, you've been here long enough to know the ASET tool doesn't give a black or white answer.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting take on our efforts Danius.
Of course you have no idea how much effort we put in, or how we work with a client to assist them. You have no idea of the lighting, as you've admitted.
As it turns out, the client got their ideas on ASET right here on PS.
They felt the ASET was "bad" based on what is commonly written here.
So the client was aware that the ASET is a device designed to show where the diamond is gathering light from.
I did state my viewpoint that "bad" is a subjective assessment ( someone's opinion), as opposed to a scientific evaluation.

IMO the ASET tells a person who is looking at an Emerald Cut right in front of them.....nothing of use.
I am not alone- even among other PS pros- in the feeling that ASET is not useful for Fancy Shapes.

 

[diur88]

Hi everyone, thanks so much for all your help! I ended up requesting and obtaining ASETS on one of the links that I posted and one of the links that tyty posted.

Here are the ASETs and corresponding James Allen links:

SKU: 1133954 (https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/2.07-carat-g-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-1133954)


SKU: 2315560 (https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/emerald-cut/1.81-carat-f-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-2315560)


Independent of the ASETs, I like 1133954 as it has a larger surface area. However, the James Allen Gemologist opinion was that 2315560 had better brilliance and scintillation throughout compared to the 1133954 diamond, which the Gemologist stated as having more of a perimeter-focused brilliance / scintillation.

Any thoughts on helping the decision? Thanks again for everything!

 

[LawmaLlama]

Both of these are showing as sold. Did you buy them already?

Not looking at the aset, the 2.07 has a very obvious symmetry problem. Symmetry is important to me in an EC. If you are buying for someone and not yourself, that may be an issue. For me, that would be an automatic reject because the symmetry is "off." It is something I would notice looking at a ring on my finger every day.

If I had to pick between the two, I'd go with the 1.81. It does have a little more flash. But honestly, I’m not crazy about it either. If you have more time, I'd search more for something better with your budget, or enlist a vendor like GOG to assist.

 

[chrono]

I agree with JA's GG that the 1.81ct F/VVS2 EC has better performance. The steps are flashing beautifully and evenly as it turns in the video. It would be my pick.